AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 820M and the NVIDIA N1 16SM shows two very different integrated graphics solutions with no direct head-to-head benchmark wins recorded for either part. With zero wins on each side, the analysis falls to the underlying specifications and architectural positioning.

The AMD Radeon 820M is built around the Krackan Point 2 chip using RDNA 3.5 architecture, targeting the low-power mobile segment with a 15 W TDP. Its 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs place it firmly in the entry-level integrated graphics tier, suitable for basic display output and light 2D workloads. The 400 MHz base clock and 2800 MHz boost clock give it a wide operating range, but the modest execution resources cap its peak throughput.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM takes a completely different approach. Based on the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, this part carries 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The sheer resource count is an order of magnitude higher than the AMD part. With a 741 MHz base clock and 2346 MHz boost clock, the N1 16SM delivers substantially higher compute throughput despite the lower boost frequency.

Where each one wins comes down to workload type rather than measured benchmark victories. The AMD Radeon 820M wins on power efficiency and simplicity, with its 15 W TDP making it suitable for thin-and-light systems where thermal headroom is minimal. The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins on raw capability, offering dedicated RT cores and tensor cores that the AMD part lacks entirely. The N1 16SM also carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the AMD part relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two IGPs is substantial. The AMD Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, a refined iteration of AMD's graphics architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses Blackwell 2.0, NVIDIA's next-generation architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process also at TSMC. The process node difference favors AMD in terms of transistor density, though the die size for the NVIDIA part is recorded at 382 mm² while the AMD die size is unknown.

The AMD part belongs to the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile) and uses the Krackan Point 2 chip. Its predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP. The NVIDIA part belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation and uses the GB20B chip, with no predecessor listed. The AMD part released on 2025-02-28, while the NVIDIA part released on 2026-05-31, making the NVIDIA silicon over a year newer.

Core configuration differences are stark. The Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, representing 16 times the shading units, 16 times the TMUs, and 6 times the ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, while the AMD part has only 2 RT cores and no tensor cores at all. This makes the N1 16SM a far more complete compute platform, especially for ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads.

Memory architecture could not be more different. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth that depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration. The NVIDIA N1 16SM integrates 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory arrangement gives the NVIDIA part predictable, high-bandwidth performance that the AMD part cannot match regardless of the host system.

The bus interface also differs: the Radeon 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the N1 16SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for AMD and a single HDMI for NVIDIA. The API support diverges completely: the AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating it may not be intended for traditional graphics API workloads in the same sense.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark data exists in the database for these two parts, so the comparison must rely on theoretical throughput figures derived from the recorded specifications.

The pixel rate tells an immediate story: the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 56.30 GPixel/s versus the AMD Radeon 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s. That is roughly 5 times the pixel throughput, which directly impacts fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution rendering. The texture rate gap is even wider: 300.3 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 22.40 GTexel/s for AMD, a difference of approximately 13.4 times. Texture-heavy workloads such as modern game scenes with detailed surfaces would heavily favor the NVIDIA part.

The FP32 compute figures amplify the divide. The Radeon 820M produces 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the N1 16SM produces 9.609 TFLOPS, which is 9,609 GFLOPS. That represents roughly 13.4 times the raw shader compute. Both parts list FP16 at the same rate as FP32 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA part also delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP16, versus 716.8 GFLOPS for AMD.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The AMD part has a higher boost clock at 2800 MHz compared to 2346 MHz for NVIDIA, and a lower base clock at 400 MHz versus 741 MHz. The higher AMD boost clock cannot compensate for the massive core count disadvantage. The NVIDIA part achieves its throughput through parallelism across 2048 shading units, not through raw clock speed.

The memory bandwidth difference is decisive for any bandwidth-sensitive workload. The N1 16SM's 273.2 GB/s of dedicated LPDDR5X bandwidth dwarfs the system-dependent bandwidth of the Radeon 820M. In integrated graphics, memory bandwidth often becomes the limiting factor, and the NVIDIA part eliminates that bottleneck entirely with its 256-bit bus and 128 GB capacity.

The RT core count also differs: 16 RT cores on the NVIDIA side versus 2 on the AMD side. While the database does not include ray tracing benchmark scores, the 8 times difference in RT core count strongly suggests that any ray-traced workload would run far better on the N1 16SM. Similarly, the 64 tensor cores on the NVIDIA part versus none on the AMD part points to a complete absence of dedicated AI acceleration on the AMD side.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, a 16 times difference.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS, making the NVIDIA part approximately 13.4 times faster.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Does either GPU have tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 64 tensor cores, while the AMD Radeon 820M has no tensor cores listed.

The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture: the NVIDIA N1 16SM is in a completely different performance class than the AMD Radeon 820M. With 2048 shading units versus 128, 16 RT cores versus 2, 64 tensor cores versus none, and 273.2 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth versus system-shared memory, the NVIDIA part dominates on every compute metric recorded in the database.

The AMD Radeon 820M does have advantages in specific areas. Its 4 nm process node is more advanced than the 5 nm node used by NVIDIA. Its 15 W TDP is explicitly recorded, while the NVIDIA TDP is unknown. The AMD part also supports mainstream graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists no API support at all. This suggests the AMD part is intended for conventional graphics workloads in standard PC environments, while the NVIDIA part may target a different use case entirely.

The release dates also matter: the AMD part came out on 2025-02-28, while the NVIDIA part arrived on 2026-05-31. The NVIDIA silicon is newer by over a year, which partially explains its architectural advantages. Both parts are currently listed as Active in production status.

For a system builder choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the intended workload. If the requirement is basic graphics output in a low-power mobile device with conventional API support, the AMD Radeon 820M fits that role with its 15 W TDP and standard graphics stack. If the requirement is high-throughput compute with ray tracing, tensor acceleration, and dedicated memory, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the only viable choice based on the recorded specifications. The lack of benchmark data for both parts means the theoretical advantages of the NVIDIA part remain unverified in practice, but the specification gap is so large that even substantial architectural inefficiencies would not close it.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | NVIDIA N1 16SM |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Krackan Point 2 | GB20B |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Blackwell IGP (N1x) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Die Size | Unknown | 382 mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 8 | 128 |

| ROPs | 4 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 2 | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 56.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 300.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 716.8 GFLOPS | 9.609 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | Unknown |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2026-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | None |